Computer Checkers / Pattern based evaluations

Discussion of chess software programming and technical issues.

Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw

Rein Halbersma
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 11:13 am

Re: Computer Checkers / Pattern based evaluations

Post by Rein Halbersma »

fierz wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:28 pm Thanks for your answers!

I should maybe mention first that I never found any good accessible explanations of how to do a pattern optimization (just as I have never found any good accessible explanation of new concepts such as NNUE); until a few weeks ago I was using a Texel-kind of tuning method for first 400 then about 4000 parameters (3-backrank instead of 2-backrank = 4096-256 additional parameters), it was taking a few days to complete, horrible. Ed explained everything to me, patiently, by email; also on magic multipliers for fast indexing; so most of the increased strength of the latest pattern-based Cake is thanks to him. I only just "finished" adding patterns and training, so there are still a lot of things that could be tried - but my gut feeling is that none of them will make such a large difference any more (things like adding more games, adding games of the latest engines = higher quality, adding games with more variety in openings, adding games of weaker engines... ).
Over on the 10x10 computer draughts forum, there were tons of replies to Fabien's introductory post about Scan patterns:
http://laatste.info/bb3/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=6786

Code for 3-valued indices:
https://github.com/rhalbersma/scan/blob ... c/eval.cpp (my mirror of Fabien's Scan)
http://laatste.info/bb3/viewtopic.php?f ... 06#p112702

Some notes on eval types + a working Keras/Tensorflow implementation to tune Ed's 10x10 eval (30 mins on 240M positions, I still need to put this in a proper GitHub repo, no time lately)
http://laatste.info/bb3/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=8298
http://laatste.info/bb3/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=8327
fierz
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:41 pm
Location: Zürich, Switzerland

Re: Computer Checkers / Pattern based evaluations

Post by fierz »

Hi Rein,

thanks for the links - but that's exactly what I call "no accessible explanation" :-)
Sure there is some information there, but not the type that I would have needed when first thinking about this. I very much like the chess programming wiki, where ideas are explained in a way that (most of the time) dummies like me can understand it.

cheers
Martin